I was also thinking some more about scotoma's attempted justification, where he/she likened the JW.org report to when a country's national media might mention if someone from the country in question was involved in a given tragedy.
The UK media focussed some attention on a young boy who recently emigrated from the UK and who was among the 20 kids who were killed, but this was really just a footnote. The overwhelming majority of coverage focused on the tragic loss of life on such a large scale, and the bravery of the teachers in giving their lives in trying to protect the children.
I'm quite convinced that if there had been NO Brits involved in the tragedy, you would never have heard the anchor saying "you'll be pleased to hear that no British children were involved." It just wouldn't be a part of the announcement at all. Why? Because it would be insensitive in the extreme, and frankly not newsworthy.
JW.org used 73 words on its website to comment on the shooting. Aside from describing the event as a "tragedy", none of those words were used to offer expressions of sadness or sympathy on behalf of the worldwide organization for the parents who have lost their children. Instead, 20 of the 73 words were used to confirm that no Witness children were harmed.
But hey, apparently, that is not sufficient evidence for some that the Watch Tower Society is only truly interested in the welfare of Jehovah's Witnesses.